[kenrexford]

♠AKxx ♥Axxx ♦xx ♣Kxx

You open 1NT (this hand fits in your methods), and partner bids 2♦ as a transfer to hearts. That is doubled, so you bid 3♥, as a "mini-super-accept." Partner bids 3NT, which is undiscussed. However, 4♣ seems about right. This is doubled. Partner now bids 5♥.

Again:

1NT-P-2♦!-X
3♥-P-3NT-P-
4♣-X-5♥-P-
?

If you pass (

Spoiler

obviously

), what do you think partner has?

[han]

6H.

[mike777]

han, on Nov 6 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

6H.

ditto.

[kenrexford]

Dummy hits:

Spoiler

♠Q10
♥KQxxx
♦109x
♣QJx

Any thoughts at all as to what partner must have been thinking? This cracked me up. At first, I thought that this was utter insanity. And, it is. But, there actually is a hand, sort of.

[andy_h]

I have got no idea what 5H is. He has a pass over 4C available. I give up.

[ASkolnick]

I know what 5H, but he does not have it.

If 4♣ is generic slam try, 5H says with a club control, bid 6♥.
If 4♣ shows a club control, 5H should say with good trumps bid 6♥

But a flat 10 count opposite a balanced strong NT is not making slam.

[TylerE]

I disagree with the 6♥ bidders. 3NT...5♥ shows a slow diamond holding (Qxxx or QJx, say) , and is asking you for a quick control there.

[han]

I bid 6H so that I wouldn't have to say what partner has.

Quote

If you pass, what do you think partner has?

[kenrexford]

Here's my take on what I think was going on:

Spoiler

Partner, first of all, missed my jump to 3♥. So, his 3NT call was not meant as Serious 3NT but rather as simply describing only five hearts. He must have also assume that "slow shows a stopper" means that 3♦ by him would be "bidding where he lives" and showing a diamond stopper.

When I bid 4♣, he must have taken this as a slam move with real clubs, something like AKxx(x). Two of the top three honors. However, he now tried to visualize with what hand I would make a slam move, not being used to this sort of maneuver. So, he expected that I must also have the Ace of hearts. That is not enough, though. He expects me to have a hand that is "better" than 17. So, he primes me out by giving me a probably spade Ace. However, something like ♠Axx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AKxxx is not enough, and adding the spade King is too much.

The only additional feature I could have would be the Ace or King of diamonds, but even the diamond King would make my hand too strong. That is, unless...

What if I do have the diamond King, specifically, but it is stiff?

Maybe ♠Axxx ♥Axx ♦K ♣AKxxx (with absolutely no pippage) or ♠Axxx ♥Axxx ♦K ♣AKxx?

Opposite either hand, he can just about count 12 tricks. On the former, ten cards in the long suits, the spade Ace, and a diamond ruff, with the spade Q10 giving options if I do get the devastating spade lead. On the latter, four clubs, five hearts, one spade, and two diamond ruffs, if all works right.

So, he bid 5♥, expecting this to be asking for a 6♥ bid if I do have diamond control AND spade control, and one of them first-round. Had he wanted just diamond control, he could have bid 4♠. Had he needed a spade control instead, he could have bid 4♦. Hence, 5♥ asks for both and implies excellent club support with good trumps.

Interesting idea, perhaps. After the hand came down, I asked one question -- did you miss my jump? His answer was "yes."

[fred]

For me 3NT would be non-forcing, so the rest of the auction doesn't really make any sense (ie opener would always either Pass 3NT or bid 4H).

But assuming 3NT means something like "I am interested in slam, please cuebid" then 5H should mean:

"I have no controls in either diamonds or spades. Look at your holdings in those suits and bid 6H only if you have me covered. Don't worry about your club or heart holdings."

It would be unusual to have a hand for which you would want to deliver such a message, particuarly if your partner is inclined to super-accept your transfers any time he has 4 trumps (not a smart way to play IMO).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Sadie3]

kenrexford, on Nov 6 2008, 11:49 PM, said:

♠AKxx ♥Axxx ♦xx ♣Kxx

You open 1NT (this hand fits in your methods), and partner bids 2♦ as a transfer to hearts.  That is doubled, so you bid 3♥, as a "mini-super-accept."  Partner bids 3NT, which is undiscussed.  However, 4♣ seems about right.  This is doubled.  Partner now bids 5♥.

I think the 3H bid is to blame for this mess. The NT opener does not have a super nor a mini super accept of the heart suit. Now the 3NT and 4C bids are understandable as exploratory for slam. Then, I think the 5H bid (by an overly ambitious partner) is clearly saying, "If you have diamonds stopped, I got the others." I think that this bidding is a roadmap for the defenders to set you.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Nov 7 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

It would be unusual to have a hand for which you would want to deliver such a message, particuarly if your partner is inclined to super-accept your transfers any time he has 4 trumps (not a smart way to play IMO).

We would only super-accept by bidding 3♥ in a sequence such as this with four trumps, primes, and a now-useful doubleton. Meaning, my actual hand is a prime example. Axxx in trumps, a doubleton in the opponents' announced diamond suit, and primes on the outside. AKxx in spades is a nice feature, as well, a possible trick source.

BTW, as you can see, we have 3 losers off the top. However, with the actual lead that I received, a small spade (the deuce), I can ditch two diamonds on the spade A-K after the spade hook works.

The spade hook failed.

[cherdano]

fred, on Nov 7 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

But assuming 3NT means something like "I am interested in slam, please cuebid" then 5H should mean:

"I have no controls in either diamonds or spades. Look at your holdings in those suits and bid 6H only if you have me covered. Don't worry about your club or heart holdings."

It would be unusual to have a hand for which you would want to deliver such a message, particuarly if your partner is inclined to super-accept your transfers any time he has 4 trumps (not a smart way to play IMO).

And it would be very unusual to have such a hand that can't first pass 4♣X (or redouble) and see whether partner can show a diamond control.

[fred]

cherdano, on Nov 7 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

fred, on Nov 7 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

But assuming 3NT means something like "I am interested in slam, please cuebid" then 5H should mean:

"I have no controls in either diamonds or spades. Look at your holdings in those suits and bid 6H only if you have me covered. Don't worry about your club or heart holdings."

It would be unusual to have a hand for which you would want to deliver such a message, particuarly if your partner is inclined to super-accept your transfers any time he has 4 trumps (not a smart way to play IMO).

And it would be very unusual to have such a hand that can't first pass 4♣X (or redouble) and see whether partner can show a diamond control.

The Double itself (by the player who is going to be on lead) is unusual too.

In principle I disagree with you though I admit that it is unlikely to matter if you Pass in this particular auction with a hand that is perfect for a 5H call (whatever that is exactly).

The point is that you don't make bids like 5H unless you are sure that you will be putting partner in a position to make an intelligent final decision (and it goes without saying that this is not likely to happen unless your partner understands what your bid means).

If you have an appropriate hand for 5H you have an appropriate hand for 5H regardless of whether or not partner's 4C bid is doubled. And, if you Pass for now, you may find that you unable to deliver your message later. Even if you can jump to 5H later, partner may wonder "why didn't he do that before if he had an appropriate hand for an immediate jump to 5H?".

5H has the potential to greatly simplify the auction when you are dealt the perfect hand for that call. Not taking advantage of such an opportunity could well complicate matters. The more complicated things get, the more likely it becomes that even a well-tuned partnership will be on slightly different wavelengths regarding some bid(s) later in the auction.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

One of my favorite points, Fred. A bid now and a bid later cannot logically show the same thing. Something is different. It is nice when the difference is somehow agreed in a fine-tuned partnership, but usually the meaning of a delay is to inadvertently express a desire to think about the correct call for one more round in the auction with hope that somehow someone will do something that takes away my problem, like the opponents accidentally bidding 7NT. Then, when you do make the delayed call after the expected sequence of normal bids, partner starts scratching his head and over-evaluating stray Jacks and 10's, or the lack thereof, as somehow contextually critical.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Nov 7 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

One of my favorite points, Fred.  A bid now and a bid later cannot logically show the same thing.  Something is different.

Read Fred's post again, Ken.

Fred is more concerned about the ambiguity of pass / 5♥ then a direct 5♥, than trying to optimize different meanings for different sequences.

In system (and meta-rule, which is the case here) design, it is a familiar trap to try to define all these auctions, or even develop rules regarding them.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Nov 7 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 7 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

One of my favorite points, Fred.  A bid now and a bid later cannot logically show the same thing.  Something is different.

Read Fred's post again, Ken.

Fred is more concerned about the ambiguity of pass / 5♥ then a direct 5♥, than trying to optimize different meanings for different sequences.

In system (and meta-rule, which is the case here) design, it is a familiar trap to try to define all these auctions, or even develop rules regarding them.

I did read the post. I don't think you got my point.

My point is that, unless these two sequences actually do have a pre-determined different meaning, partner may well wonder why you did not make the bid the first time. So, make the bid now.

I understand that trying to define each and every sequence and the nuances to be derived therefrom may be dangerous and a waste of brain power. If and when a sequence recurs enough for your partnership to actually have discussed it, then presumably your partnership has deemed this situation worthwhile to discuss.

However, there are sequences that occur all the time where one person decides to not make a clear bid for some strange reason and then expects you to figure out his meaning later when he comes back in. A recent example I gave was:

1♠-X-P-2♦
P-2♥-P-3♣
P-P-3♥

When partner (1) does not bid 2♥ after the double and (2) does not double 2♥ for penalty, and then (3) bids 3♥ at this late point, the obvious usual principle that undiscussed bids are natural seems so absurdly unlikely that about half of the people could not believe that 3♥ actually shows hearts. The "I want to think about it some more" passing early on just throws partner for a complete loop.

In contrast, there are auctions where passing and then coming in suggests something specific, like forcing pass auctions. In those discussed situations, opting to pass and then bid, rather than to just bid, actually has a known nuance, presumably, and is fine.

[keylime]

Fred,

I want to ask a question here in terms of intent.

Would 5♥ here, since it was bid voluntarily, show absolute diamond control and asking by implication about the unbid suit, spades?